Several years ago, the City of Charlotte engaged in the process of developing 14 Community Area Plans. Seven were adopted last fall with the remaining seven delayed for additional review. Last week council held a hearing on the remaining plans and also adopted what was described as a maintenance amendment the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) aimed at providing additional clarity and resolving inconsistencies.
For the Community Area Plans, staff is recommending three policy changes and they are as follows:
The Revised Policy Map and additional information can be found on the Charlotte Future 2040 Comprehensive Plan website
The text amendment that was adopted may be found here, along with the summary here.
My Take: The Charlotte UDO became effective on June 1, 2023. As we near its three-year anniversary, it seems like a good time to reflect on where we are. So far, 14 text amendments have been adopted, with work in progress on at least a couple more. These kinds of changes are to be expected because while many text amendments to this point have been technical in nature, future changes will likely have greater policy implications.
However, the proposed new language to be included as guidance for the Area Plans gives me pause. With the passage of the UDO, council signaled it understood Charlotte was moving from being a “greenfield development” city to a community largely being redeveloped, and that higher densities were acceptable moving forward in order to handle a rapidly growing population. Unfortunately, since passage of the ordinance, the signals coming to us now are very mixed.
The proposed guidance language for inclusion within the Community Area Plans seems to take us in a direction that would hamper our ability to meet current and future housing needs. Tragically, it gives greater say to existing homeowners at the potential detriment of those seeking to become part of our community. That doesn’t seem all that neighborly to me. Is there only one voice and future voices don’t count?
I’d like to hear from you. What’s your perspective? [email protected]
Last Thursday Planning Staff convened a meeting of the UDO Advisory Committee, of which I serve as a member. Topics discussed included proposed floodplain changes, potential amendments to stormwater rules, an update on text amendments, information about the updated UDO website, and a brief discussion regarding future meetings and how input would be received from the committee.
I’m particularly interested in gaining feedback from you on two items. It would appear, based on the presentation, that we are in the early stages of the process regarding proposed floodplain changes. Please share your thoughts about the proposal.
Secondly, I would like to hear about any experiences you have had with stormwater compliance and dealing with Article 25: Post-Construction Stormwater Regulations of the UDO, especially those of you conducting infill development.
Here’s a link to the full presentation that was provided by staff:
UDO Advisory Committee Presentation
The recording of the meeting is available to view using the link below:
Your input assists us in providing policy direction and your real-life examples regarding challenges in complying with the ordinance, along with potential solutions, help us inform staff and elected officials and may result in future changes as well as enhanced clarity.
My Take: Stormwater mitigation is tricky, as are the rules designed to ensure compliance. Although it makes sense that as infill development and redevelopment keep occurring, I see conflicts emerging, and existing residents should not be adversely impacted by unwanted stormwater runoff.
However, as local governments seek to impose regulations aimed at limiting these disputes, they must do so within the constraints of State Statute. I would argue that in this case, Charlotte is not staying within the Statute. State law specifically states that stormwater controls are only required for new built upon area that is created on a site minus any existing built upon area that already existed prior to the project. Charlotte does not give you credit for the built upon area that already exists and treats a scrape and rebuild as “new development.” Here’s the pertinent section of G.S. 143-214.7 Stormwater runoff rules and programs:
“(b3) Stormwater runoff rules and programs shall not require private property owners to install new or increased stormwater controls for (i) preexisting development or (ii) redevelopment activities that do not remove or decrease existing stormwater controls. When a preexisting development is redeveloped, either in whole or in part, increased stormwater controls shall only be required for the amount of impervious surface being created that exceeds the amount of impervious surface that existed before the redevelopment, irrespective of whether the impervious surface that existed before the redevelopment is to be demolished or relocated during the development activity. A property owner may elect to treat the stormwater resulting from the net increase in built-upon area above the preexisting development for the purpose of exceeding allowable density under the applicable water supply watershed rules as provided in G.S. 143-214.5(d3). This subsection applies to all local governments regardless of the source of their regulatory authority. Local governments shall include the requirements of this subsection in their stormwater ordinances.”
We will continue to weigh in on this topic as changes to the ordinance are considered. In the meantime, let me know if you have come across any similar challenges.
BACK TO LATEST NEWS